Disrespecting Non-Jews (I)
Rabbi Naphtali Hoff’s April 24 front-page essay, “The Chillul Hashem of Disrespecting Non-Jews,” was very insightful.
As I see it, the problem originates in the home, where parents in front of their children refer to non-Jews in a derogatory manner (“goyim,” “shiksas,” etc.). I also understand that this is taught in some yeshivas as well. It stems from a ghetto mentality and it is not what the Torah teaches us.
The prime example is Avraham Avinu, who treated everyone with kindness and respect. Despite initially thinking the angels who visited him were idol worshippers, he went out of his way to be hospitable to them.
The Torah tells us we are to be a light unto the world. How can we fulfill that role properly if we show contempt for those who do not share our ethnicity or religious beliefs?
Alan Fenster
(Via E-Mail)
Disrespecting Non-Jews (II)
Rabbi Hoff deserves a great deal of credit for taking on a very real and troubling issue in the Orthodox world. And it’s become an increasingly problematic issue, as the frum community has grown ever more insular, adopting chumras and opinions that are based on an exceedingly narrow outlook, at the same time that the information revolution of the Internet and social media has made it impossible to pretend to outsiders that such views don’t exist.
Although not directly involved in kiruv work myself, I am well acquainted with many fine people who are, and I know that an unpleasant little secret in the kiruv world is that a not insignificant number of ba’alei teshuvah eventually either scale back their Orthodox observance or abandon frumkeit entirely – and one of the main reasons is the attitudes toward non-Jews they confront among all too many frum Jews and which as educated and sensitive individuals they simply cannot abide.
In looking at the vast corpus of rabbinic literature, one can find inclusive and universalistic statements as well as thoughts and declarations that can only be described as tribal superiority of the very sort Jews are so quick to condemn in others. When I was a young man thirty and forty years ago studying in day schools and yeshivas, the rebbeim emphasized the more tolerant viewpoints expressed by some rabbonim and downplayed or ignored the harsher, sometimes quite negative approach taken by others. The opposite now seems to be in play, and we are far from the better for it.
Eliezer Schwartz
(Via E-Mail)
What’s He Thinking?
Based on the flawed tentative agreement with Iran, the obvious question to be asked is whether President Obama is naive, ill informed, basically unconcerned about the security of Israel, or perhaps all of these?
Whatever the answer, the result of his actions can be catastrophic to the very survival of Israel, as he continues to press an agreement that leaves the nuclear and missile capability of Iran intact and its international terrorist organizations, including Hizbullah and Hamas, supplied with a larger war chest.
The lifting of sanctions, which has already started, will be accelerated under the agreement with billions of dollars available to Iran to pursue its aggressive policies. What’s Obama thinking?
Nelson Marans
Silver Spring, MD
There They Go Again
There the administration goes again! This time it was Wendy Sherman, speaking at the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center. She warned: “We will be watching very closely. If a new Israeli government is seen as stepping back from its commitment to a two-state solution …that makes our job in the international community a lot tougher.”
How many times does Prime Minister Netanyahu have to clarify his pre-election remarks as not meaning “never” but rather “not now” to a two-state solution? The administration evidently is being willfully deaf to those repeated statements.
But it was relative to the Iran nuclear talks, for which Sherman is chief negotiator, that delusion really set in.
“We will have eyes on to every part of Iran’s nuclear program, from cradle to grave,” she said. “If we detect Iran’s trying to break its commitments or violate the agreement, we will have every single option on the table.”
Based on past performance, she should have said “stuck to the table.” As for that supposedly ultra-intrusive inspection regime, given Iran’s radically different interpretation of the “framework,” including non-inspection of military facilities, non-shipment out of the country of current stocks of enriched uranium, pattern of non-cooperation with the IAEA, etc., good luck with that.
This is all eerily similar to the nuclear negotiations with North Korea, for which Wendy Sherman was also chief negotiator. It’s no state secret just how well those worked out.
Richard D. Wilkins
Syracuse, NY
Deteriorating Situations
Since President Obama took office, the situations in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and now Yemen have become remarkably worse. Iran, ISIS, and Al Qaeda are all more violent, dangerous, and threatening.
In what was basically a stabilized Iraq, Obama’s quick military withdrawal has brought disaster. The city of Mosul is now in the hands of ISIS terrorists and the city of Takrit is now in ruins.
In short, the decisions made by Obama have left us “Up Takrit Without a Paddle.” Obama’s mistakes show what can happen if you conduct foreign policy on very important issues without a “Mosul” of understanding.
Arthur Horn
East Windsor, NJ
Obama No Worse Than Predecessors
As some of your readers have noted in previous letters, the fact is that in terms of policy and actions, Barack Obama is no worse than any previous U.S. president when it comes to Israel. In fact, he’s defended Israel at the UN and other international venues in terms not heard from any previous president, including his outright declaration to the General Assembly that Israel is a Jewish state.
And unlike Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both Bushes, he’s never punished Israel by voting against it at the UN or suspending previously promised arms shipments.
As for Obama’s relationship with Netanyahu, let’s not forget that Ronald Reagan intensely disliked Menachem Begin and Bill Clinton couldn’t stand Bibi back in the 1990s. No one called those presidents anti-Semites. But I know none of this will make any difference to those who embarrass themselves by equating Obama with Hitler or Haman, as many indeed do in private conversations and on blogs and websites.
I strongly disagree with Obama’s Iran policy, just as I did with certain aspects of George W. Bush’s policies, Bill Clinton’s policies, etc. (Both of those gentlemen were just as adamant as Obama in their opposition to Israeli settlements, and it was Bush whose administration was responsible for the electoral success of Hamas.) But in a world where Jews have more than our share of real enemies, it’s madness to equate misguided – even dangerously misguided – policies with an actual desire to harm Jews or Israel.
Alan Blair
(Via E-Mail)